Pat Robertson also said that Trump’s best course of action after the indictments against his former campaign staffers is to issue a “blanket pardon” to anyone indicted in connection with the investigations into Russia and shut down Robert Mueller’s “tainted” special counsel investigation. He is also a past president of the Council for National Policy. I used to make fun of conspiracy theorists, still do, but these people all have weird interconnections that freak me out.

For a few weeks, I did hope that the family separate at the border was going to wake up Evangelical Christians that maybe the price of Trump was not worth the incredible judges he was giving them.

Then Kennedy announced he was retiring. There was simply no way Evangelicals were going to let that get messed up. And now it seems as though Democrats' behavior during those hearings was outrageous enough that suddenly Trump isn't seeming so terrible through Evangelical eyes.

What would really drive the stake into the heart of Democrats would be having a mass shooting.

I don't think that I can agree that both sides have a double standard though, and I'm very definitely not pretending it's not partisan. Democrats allowed a vote on Clarence Thomas and even helped confirm him as mentioned in my last post. Merrick Garland not only got zero votes from Republicans, he didn't even get a vote period. Yet Republicans are the ones in the hearing whining about how the process shouldn't be politicized and Kavanaugh should be confirmed because he's "qualified".

Bork? Robert Bork?

I used to think that Bork got a bum deal. That's what I heard from the conservative side.

Then I learned WHY Bork got hammered by the Democrats.

When Nixon started order people who were investigating him (over Watergate crimes and the resulting coverup) to be fired, Bork complied. (Several people above him in the chain of command resigned rather than do so.)

In that manner, Bork actively impeded a criminal investigation into felonious conduct by the President and others.

Fuck Kansas. I bought groceries there once at a trader joes and the tax was 11%. ON FUCKING GROCERIES. Not like take out prepared meal groceries, but produce, meat, etc. I was so flabbergasted I made some overt ststements to the cashier who had to try to politely explain Brownbackism to me. Never again, Kansas. Talk about a regressive tax on the poor.

Fuck Kansas. I bought groceries there once at a trader joes and the tax was 11%. ON FUCKING GROCERIES. Not like take out prepared meal groceries, but produce, meat, etc. I was so flabbergasted I made some overt ststements to the cashier who had to try to politely explain Brownbackism to me. Never again, Kansas. Talk about a regressive tax on the poor.

Fuck Kansas. I bought groceries there once at a trader joes and the tax was 11%. ON FUCKING GROCERIES. Not like take out prepared meal groceries, but produce, meat, etc. I was so flabbergasted I made some overt ststements to the cashier who had to try to politely explain Brownbackism to me. Never again, Kansas. Talk about a regressive tax on the poor.

Fuck Kansas. I bought groceries there once at a trader joes and the tax was 11%. ON FUCKING GROCERIES. Not like take out prepared meal groceries, but produce, meat, etc. I was so flabbergasted I made some overt ststements to the cashier who had to try to politely explain Brownbackism to me. Never again, Kansas. Talk about a regressive tax on the poor.

Repellent Republican policies in practice.

In Oregon, democrats tried to instate a sales tax, er, I mean a "gross receipts" tax (a distinction without a difference) to plug the budget holes left by decades of catering to thier public employee union donors... and it would have applied to groceries. Now they oppose a bill designed specifically to prevent democrats from taxing groceries with such a tax.

Repellent Leftist policies in practice.

I don't know the details of Brownback's fiscal policy (It sounds reckless and poorly considered), but you CANNOT call a sales tax on groceries an exclusively (repellent) republican policy, nor can you judge an entire tax scheme based on a single element.

Nothing, other than illustrating how people who point out Ford's gofundme really don't like to talk about Kavanaugh's.

Because I don't think its relevant, he wasn't seeking attention to this matter obviously. The opinion of some seems to be that Ford had a lot to gain. Speculation is that this could net 10+M. I'm cynical enough to know it's certainly a possibility.

Nothing, other than illustrating how people who point out Ford's gofundme really don't like to talk about Kavanaugh's.

Because I don't think its relevant, he wasn't seeking attention to this matter obviously. The opinion of some seems to be that Ford had a lot to gain. Speculation is that this could net 10+M. I'm cynical enough to know it's certainly a possibility.

Nothing, other than illustrating how people who point out Ford's gofundme really don't like to talk about Kavanaugh's.

Because I don't think its relevant, he wasn't seeking attention to this matter obviously. The opinion of some seems to be that Ford had a lot to gain. Speculation is that this could net 10+M. I'm cynical enough to know it's certainly a possibility.

LOL. Ford has a lot to gain.

LOL.

I don't know, you know I've heard from a lot of people, I mean people, you know people are saying, a lot of people are saying that Ford had a lot to gain. Credible people!

Nothing, other than illustrating how people who point out Ford's gofundme really don't like to talk about Kavanaugh's.

Because I don't think its relevant, he wasn't seeking attention to this matter obviously. The opinion of some seems to be that Ford had a lot to gain. Speculation is that this could net 10+M. I'm cynical enough to know it's certainly a possibility.

LOL. Ford has a lot to gain.

LOL.

I don't know, you know I've heard from a lot of people, I mean people, you know people are saying, a lot of people are saying that Ford had a lot to gain. Credible people!

Next we'll be told that Clinton and Obama sent bombs to themselves and that jet fuel cannot melt steel.

If I had been given a job to do and haven't done any work for three weeks I'd probably be fired by now.

Supreme Court Justices don't make individual decisions. The court issues opinions as a whole. A justice may choose to write a separate statement to support or dissent when an opinion is released though.No opinions of the court have been released in 2018.They are publicly available and will be found here:https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinion/18

He has done plenty of work. He has attended all hearings since being seated. He has asked questions and been attentive.

I do not think he should have been confirmed; but there is nothing yet to say the guy has not done his job. I'll wait until he starts stripping people of their rights to be outraged.

Nothing, other than illustrating how people who point out Ford's gofundme really don't like to talk about Kavanaugh's.

Because I don't think its relevant, he wasn't seeking attention to this matter obviously. The opinion of some seems to be that Ford had a lot to gain. Speculation is that this could net 10+M. I'm cynical enough to know it's certainly a possibility.

Just to be clear, that anonymous rape accusation was never brought up publicly, and also was not recanted.

Instead, this lady sent in someone else's unsubstantiated letter as her own, then admitted to doing so. If this story had ever been publicized as one of Kavanaugh's four accusers, you'd have a better case to argue "one of his acusers has recanted" because none of those four have done so. This lady never testified under oath, never met with a lawyer, never anything except send someone else's misappropriated letter to congress.

That is not recanting. The original author of that letter appears to still be unknown, but has not recanted it. This lady who stole the letter admitted to sending it as if it were her own, and is being prosecuted for it. Not the same thing as recanting.

If I had been given a job to do and haven't done any work for three weeks I'd probably be fired by now.

The justices hold weekly conferences during the term, where they discuss the cases they heard argument for the week before. After the discussion they vote on the outcome. The senior justice in the majority assigns the opinion to one of the members in the majority.

Kavanaugh has certainly voted in conference, and if there were any straightforward unanimous cases he may have been assigned the opinion to get his first one out of the way. He may also be writing a dissenting opinion for any cases where he was not with the majority. IIRC, Gorsuch wrote a descent quite early last term.

Just to be clear, that anonymous rape accusation was never brought up publicly, and also was not recanted.

Instead, this lady sent in someone else's unsubstantiated letter as her own, then admitted to doing so. If this story had ever been publicized as one of Kavanaugh's four accusers, you'd have a better case to argue "one of his acusers has recanted" because none of those four have done so. This lady never testified under oath, never met with a lawyer, never anything except send someone else's misappropriated letter to congress.

That is not recanting. The original author of that letter appears to still be unknown, but has not recanted it. This lady who stole the letter admitted to sending it as if it were her own, and is being prosecuted for it. Not the same thing as recanting.

But I suppose you'll call that fake news, right?

Thanks for the info. Why would I call it fake news if it's true? That isn't what the link I provided says, but you may have information I have not seen. It was brought up in a committee hearing.

I have tried to be civil, polite, and look at both sides. I've asked for clarification from people who seem to have info I don't.

Just to be clear, that anonymous rape accusation was never brought up publicly, and also was not recanted.

Instead, this lady sent in someone else's unsubstantiated letter as her own, then admitted to doing so. If this story had ever been publicized as one of Kavanaugh's four accusers, you'd have a better case to argue "one of his acusers has recanted" because none of those four have done so. This lady never testified under oath, never met with a lawyer, never anything except send someone else's misappropriated letter to congress.

That is not recanting. The original author of that letter appears to still be unknown, but has not recanted it. This lady who stole the letter admitted to sending it as if it were her own, and is being prosecuted for it. Not the same thing as recanting.

But I suppose you'll call that fake news, right?

Sorry Sol, went back and looked at it again, and on this one you are wrong. She DID accuse him of rape, and she DID recant. So my original post on this was 100% correct. That she played a weird game with some other person's letter is besides the point. She is just another nutty political activist.

By the way, did you read the letter? Amazing! Like some bodice-ripper. How anyone took that seriously I can't guess.

I don't think anybody did take it seriously, which may be why it was never reported in the national news the way the other allegations were.

And lets not forget that the same process that revealed that this lady's story seems fabricated also determined that the other stores seemed genuine. Republicans still claimed "we'll never know for sure" and then promoted old Brett anyway.

Just to be clear, that anonymous rape accusation was never brought up publicly, and also was not recanted.

Instead, this lady sent in someone else's unsubstantiated letter as her own, then admitted to doing so. If this story had ever been publicized as one of Kavanaugh's four accusers, you'd have a better case to argue "one of his acusers has recanted" because none of those four have done so. This lady never testified under oath, never met with a lawyer, never anything except send someone else's misappropriated letter to congress.

That is not recanting. The original author of that letter appears to still be unknown, but has not recanted it. This lady who stole the letter admitted to sending it as if it were her own, and is being prosecuted for it. Not the same thing as recanting.

But I suppose you'll call that fake news, right?

Sorry Sol, went back and looked at it again, and on this one you are wrong. She DID accuse him of rape, and she DID recant. So my original post on this was 100% correct. That she played a weird game with some other person's letter is besides the point. She is just another nutty political activist.

By the way, did you read the letter? Amazing! Like some bodice-ripper. How anyone took that seriously I can't guess.

Hmm. It's almost like you are saying there is a process in place to distinguish between credible, and non-credible accusations. And that it works. Trump admitted that Ford's statement were credible. But then attacked her, a bunch of conspiracy crap thrown at her including fake photoes. After Kavanaugh was confirmed when asked again, Trump stated "it doesn't matter. We won."

Just to be clear, that anonymous rape accusation was never brought up publicly, and also was not recanted.

Instead, this lady sent in someone else's unsubstantiated letter as her own, then admitted to doing so. If this story had ever been publicized as one of Kavanaugh's four accusers, you'd have a better case to argue "one of his acusers has recanted" because none of those four have done so. This lady never testified under oath, never met with a lawyer, never anything except send someone else's misappropriated letter to congress.

That is not recanting. The original author of that letter appears to still be unknown, but has not recanted it. This lady who stole the letter admitted to sending it as if it were her own, and is being prosecuted for it. Not the same thing as recanting.

But I suppose you'll call that fake news, right?

Sorry Sol, went back and looked at it again, and on this one you are wrong. She DID accuse him of rape, and she DID recant. So my original post on this was 100% correct. That she played a weird game with some other person's letter is besides the point. She is just another nutty political activist.

By the way, did you read the letter? Amazing! Like some bodice-ripper. How anyone took that seriously I can't guess.

Let's go back to your original statement, "One of the accusers has recanted". Technically speaking this may be a true statement but it is misleading at best and debatably untrue within the context of this thread.

When you say "one of the accusers" this implies one of the 4 accusers who have been discussed in this thread. The woman you are referring to was not one of them. If you had said "One of the accusers" It would have been less misleading, but still largely irrelevant.

Basically the standards for your statement to be true are low enough that any one of us could make an accusation against Kavanaugh today, recant it tomorrow, and the same would be true of us. Do you really think this is relevant to the discussion?

ETA: Just found Trump's tweet regarding this other accuser

"A vicious accuser of Justice Kavanaugh has just admitted that she was lying, her story was totally made up, or FAKE! Can you imagine if he didn’t become a Justice of the Supreme Court because of her disgusting False Statements. What about the others? Where are the Dems on this?"— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 3, 2018

Even Trump didn't go as far as to refer to her as "One of the accusers". His statement is however misleading for other reasons.

So let me get this straight. One accuser has recanted, and one of the "original 4" mentioned above has a history of making false accusations (Julie Swetnick). She lied to her former employer that she had a degree from John Hopkins University when she didn't. She made accusations against her employer of making "unwanted sexual innuendo" at her workplace, and later sued the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority on the grounds that a fall she had on a train cost her a lucrative modeling gig. She's also been involved in over 6 cases in the past 20 yrs. This was a lame attempt to get into the media glare. I hope any false accusers get punished by the maximum amount allowable.

I hope any false accusers get punished by the maximum amount allowable.

Agreed. It's one of the reasons that I wanted a full investigation done. Guilty parties should be held responsible for their actions. By blocking a proper investigation, the Republicans prevented this from happening.

I hope any false accusers get punished by the maximum amount allowable.

Agreed. It's one of the reasons that I wanted a full investigation done. Guilty parties should be held responsible for their actions. By blocking a proper investigation, the Republicans prevented this from happening.

Pat Robertson also said that Trump’s best course of action after the indictments against his former campaign staffers is to issue a “blanket pardon” to anyone indicted in connection with the investigations into Russia and shut down Robert Mueller’s “tainted” special counsel investigation. He is also a past president of the Council for National Policy. I used to make fun of conspiracy theorists, still do, but these people all have weird interconnections that freak me out.

There is a podcast on Stitcher called "The Dream" about MLMs. A good listen. Episode 10 - they connect many of the big names. Wow...